Verification and humanity
Understand how evidence strength, uniqueness checks, human review, and appeals should match Mission risk.
Verification asks whether a defined action qualifies. Humanity checks ask whether participation needs stronger confidence that one real person is acting fairly.
The required strength should increase with value and abuse risk. A low-value community check-in should not demand the same evidence as a high-value reward.
Independent signals
High-risk decisions can combine different signals so one easy-to-manipulate source is not decisive. Signals may organize review or indicate risk; they should not become an unexplained permanent label on a person.
Human review and appeals
Some cases need a reviewer, especially near policy boundaries or when automation is uncertain. Reviewers need the policy version and relevant evidence, not unlimited Member data.
Where policy allows a challenge, a different reviewer should be able to assess the decision and record the outcome.
Humanity controls can exclude people if designed carelessly. Final policies must address accessibility, regional availability, false matches, retention, and a path for people who cannot use the primary method.